Does the Attorney General have a valid argument that the sentence of a defendant who entered into a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence is too lenient?

We find the Attorney General's side of this argument to be the more persuasive. "When a defendant maintains that the trial court's sentence violates rules which would have required the imposition of a more lenient sentence, yet the defendant avoided a potentially harsher sentence by entering into the plea bargain, it may be implied that the defendant waived any rights under such rules by choosing to accept the plea bargain." (People v. Couch (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1057.) Morales faced two charges of attempted murder, and he entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence, thereby avoiding a much harsher punishment.